The pilot reported flying a visual approach to a 2,800-foot turf runway at Smith Airport (43KS) in Manhattan, Kansas. He noted the runway had an upslope.
When the Cessna 172 was about two-thirds down the runway, at an airspeed of about 55 knots, and with its flaps extended, he applied full throttle. He perceived a partial loss of engine power based on lower-than-expected noise and the airplane’s inability to climb normally.
The airplane descended slightly and then hit trees and fence poles off the end of the runway, which substantially damaged both wings. The pilot sustained minor injuries in the crash.
A post-accident examination of the engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal power. The pilot told investigators that he did not apply carburetor heat during the visual approach.
According to the FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-09-35, Carburetor Icing Prevention, the airplane had a probability of encountering serious carburetor icing at glide power near the accident location.
A pilot familiar with 43KS reported that the runway upslope was “deceiving and can sneak up on you” and that a creek at the departure end often produced “dead air” and a loss of lift, which demonstrated the importance of executing a fly-over with excess airspeed.
After the accident, the pilot stated that he should have maintained a higher airspeed during the low approach and initiated the go-around earlier.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s failure to use carburetor heat during the approach and his unsuitable flight profile for an upsloping runway, which resulted in a partial loss of engine power and an impact with terrain during an attempted go-around.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This April 2022 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Money doesn’t buy happiness—or in this case, climb capability with a dying engine.
The runway he was landing on was 17 in the report. The wind from the nearest reporting station was reporting 350 at the time.
Downwind landing?
“A pilot familiar with 43KS reported that the runway upslope was “deceiving and can sneak up on you” and that a creek at the departure end often produced “dead air” and a loss of lift, which demonstrated the importance of executing a fly-over with excess airspeed.”
Still looking thru FAR Part 1, the PHAK, AFH, AIM, various A/Cs…for a definition of “dead air”…
A bigger mystery to me: How can a 24-year-old Private Pilot afford to fly a club airplane 64 hours in 30 days!?!?
I must be in the wrong club!
If there’s convection heat off the runway providing lift, the lift over a water body would be less, hence “dead air”.
However, I don’t think a creek would be much of a factor.
Thinking the whole scenario is a competence issue.
Seems to be a well funded, serious time builder. If you have the money, this is the way to do it, rather than fly a hour a week forever. How he obtained the money doesn’t really matter much.